Necessary bias revealed: I'm a very big fan of Edward Ashton, I think his playfullness and sense of humor matches Iain M Banks in the Culture series, tackling near- or far-future concepts that they make believe possible, in a sardonic, personal way.
This is a very difficult thing to adapt to screen, a particular sensibility.
When someone like Bong is directing, he's going to make it his own. I thought it was funny, weird, and in two hours hit every…
Seen three times, each as enveloping as the last. Hits that infinitesimal gap where moving your body or eyes away from the screen is as futile as doing sit-ups on countdown for anesthesia. Once it's rolling, you're under its power.
I weep for a director that understands that music isn't just a "score" and who knows that sound is equally important to sight. Why is it so difficult to figure out that half of Kubrick's genius was knowing good music and where it belongs in his story?
Great sound design, the leitmotif of *something* happening left me more interested in the brilliant droning, guttural vibrations in my skull than all the rest.
Who cares about body horror? Who cares about grossing out the audience? Closest theater experience I've had was the Suspiria remake.
Thesis? Who remembers the Suspiria remake? Bold, gross, colorful, unsubtle, yet within a day, forgetful.
Glad to have seen it.
I have an overall distaste for the meta, or what I perceive as self-indulgence. The taste leaves when there's something captivating in front of me. Saying your movie is going to be boring in the first twenty minutes is fine.
When the first twenty minutes is the most interesting part of the movie, not for lack of attention, I really don't care. There are layers I don't want and don't have the time to parse, and as art it's annoying, visually stifling, bad cliches of his own past seriousness.
Truly, actually, bad stuff.
